What are bots good at?

This is a pretty simple question and I was wondering what Neutrino and Scathis's plan was for bots.

In SupremeCommander2 there were 'bots' and they were faster and more destructive than tanks, however tanks were harder to kill and longer ranged, so tended to be better in a brawl.

In TA, bots tended to be bad in comparison to vehicles until you hit tier 2 and got your Zees (which is the plural of multiple Zues bots).

In TA there were Spiders which could walk on any surface, be it vertical or otherwise. Clearly useful.

In TA and successors there were hover vehicles that could travel over water.

How are bots and vehicles going to be relevant in PA?

Will there be some guidelines that represent basic advantages of either or no?

In TA, bots could travel up steeper slopes in some cases.

In Star Craft, marines can man bunkers.

In Supreme Commander 1 bots could fire from their transports.

In the Planetary Annihilation teaser only bots were fired out of the Planetary Cannon.

I am curious if Uber has any base plans for bots vs. vehicles.

Based on the sizes provided bots looks like they will be less tough than vehicles, because they are smaller.

What are some other community ideas? Please contribute.

Yes, they will most likely have less hitpoints than vehicles. But they will also cost less mass than vehicles, so if you are low on mass but high on energy, you want to go for bots. (This has been confirmed at some point, i think.)

Bots may also be more specialized / versatile while vehicles only fulfill the tank / artillery role. It's most likely that tanks are not going to have personal shields, field engineer, amphibian, counter intelligence or proper scouting abilities.

As for movement, bots tend to have better turn rates and acceleration whereby vehicles achieve higher top speeds. This results in much closer formations for bots while vehicles require a lot of space when moving in groups. Movement on rough terrain seems to be irrelevant for TA since all ramps look like every unit would be able to traverse.

Any word from Scathis, Garath and Neutrino on this?

Why the hell vehicles cant have what bots can? this sounds extremely arbitrary. TA's jiffy and weasel were extremely useful fast scouts which also provided excellent harassing tactics, and dont forget mobile radar/jammer.

It is a bit strange. In TotalA, the differences in T1 were largely due to mobility quirks. K-bots excelled in some environments, while vehicles did great in others. The roles were otherwise identical. In T2, K-bots and Vehicles each got a different selection of specialists. Picking one set of units means you can't get the other set for a good while.

If the T1 units end up being mostly redundant with each other, it may be worth scrunching the T1 factories together into a single system. It is still possible for T2 factories to have multiple, separate paths.

With the new pathfinder, they could make kbot going easily through fields of wreckage.
So the need of tank/bot would dynamically change during the game or depend on the battlefield.

Another idea: Kbot could have a better vision due to their height.

Bots are meat shields, cheap offense, and can be easily mobilized.

Id like to also implement bots as the players go to choice for cannon fodder SPAM units.

TA was good with this by having the Peewee infantry use enough dakka that when stacked they could even kill krogaths in a tide of men (Cloned men).

I would like to see an implementation of bots/mechs/vehicles/tanks that differs from TA. I think bots should be quite small and cheap, meant to be used in large groups or spread over large areas, compared with significantly larger vehicles and tanks. This was somewhat true in TA, and might be exaggerated in PA.

Bot gameplay is going to massively depend on the units and their roles. I would like to see small bot gameplay along the lines of scout, raider (i.e. glaive), rifle unit (long range high accuracy direct fire, medium damage, long cooldown, doesn't shoot over/through terrain, friendlies, enemies) to zone enemy bots, main combat bot, assault bot, light bot artillery, generalist missile bot, rocket skirmisher, etc.

Vehicles and tanks should be considerably larger and more expensive than bots. A single tank should be a bigger chunk size than a single bot. With enough economy you can still get them in huge numbers, so with respect to the game's scale they are still small. But armor and bots should have complex interactions like infantry and armor in a real military confrontation.

Planes, also, should be larger than vehicles/tanks, possibly with exceptions. A single plane should represent a larger investment than a single asset of most other types, but shouldn't be much more durable. However planes are impervious to common, cheap weaponry; you need anti-air, which is either dedicated, or can also target ground, but is less cost-efficient than dedicated ground weaponry. Planes' greatest survivability features are their altitude and speed. In terms of HP they die very easily.

And mechs are large bots, like Striders in Zero-K. Larger than tanks and vehicles. To fit with the PA system, there could be large generalist T1 mechs, and large specialist T2 mechs. So now there would be four bot-type factories; T1 bots, T2 bots, T1 mechs, and T2 mechs. Mechs should also play quite differently than any of the above. There are lots of ways to differentiate them; roles, cost concentration, etc. If there is a "super unit" it should probably be a T2 mech, and vastly more expensive than any of the others. Effectively a T3 mech at that point.

I want "high tech" to not necessarily mean larger and more powerful, however. Why can't we have the cost-equivalent of "T3" light tanks or "T3" small bots (without a third tech level), which have advanced features or functionality even if they aren't bigger or stronger in terms of brute force?

That will not work any more. It did only ever work, because the unit AI in old games like TA was stupid enough to attack the nearest target. But it looks like the unit AI Sorian is writing is going for a much smarter target selection, so even if you put your high DPS indirect fire units behind a meat shield, it will just be ignored until the biggest threat has been put down.

The "mech" class bots fulfill the same roles as vehicles? That means they are pretty much redundant, you just made them T3 / T4 size units which fit the same roles as T1 / T2 vehicles did, this violates the design rules of PA. In Zero-K it's fine, since you have redundancy between the individual factory types and it's mostly a "pick 1-2 factories you like the most", but this type of redundancy is undesired in PA since it means that most of the units will be never used by a single player. Techrace (and therefore T3 units) are also not part of the plan, as you level up in tech, lower tech units are not supposed to become redundant, so you can't just introduce brute force T3 units which are the same as T1 / T2, but only offer a better bang for bucks ratio.

There was also a reason behind the design decision not to put heavy weapons (artillery, rockets) onto bots but to make them exclusive to vehicles, because it feels just wrong if you try to mount heavy weapons on a fragile, maybe even bipedal construction. If you want to carry heavy loads, tracks or wheels are the only viable choice, even more so if you have weapons with massive recoil.

Bots could probably remain as decent meat shields because even if an enemy army targets your vulnerable units at the rear, the shots would hit the front units first unless you have arty or the enemy has a height advantage.

I like your idea ledarsi (as usual!) but exterminans is right in that your role for Mech isn't nearly defined enough to fit with the other 3.

TA always suffered from the 'hmm what are Kbots for', and Zero-K really took it to the extreme ('pick your favorite flavor of factory today, they are all the same'). Lots of different units, and there was very little strategic difference between them.

Giving the player cosmetic choices is a waste of time and development effort - why don't we make those differences MEAN something? Doesn't this already look a bit more interesting:


Why not make kbots be the 'infantry' of the game - varied roles, cheap, maneuverable, but needs to operate in groups to be effective. T2 kbots would follow the PA paradigm and open up the tactical options. Kbots would then be limited to single weapon systems, and in order to meet multiple threats, you need several different types of kbots, as laid out by Ledarsi. These are ideal for close quarters combat, and move in and between trees, gaining a natural advantage in forested areas by the simple fact that tank shells would hit the trees, not the kbots.. and so on.

Then tanks can be the next step in the progression - faster overall, larger, cost more, longer ranged, and have generally a higher alpha damage, but slower shots - similar dps to kbots. T2 tanks, again, expand the tactical options by providing more specialist units. Tanks in general would carry at most 2 weapons systems.

Third you'd have the mech class. Commander being one of that class already. Large, specialised mechs that carry multiple support systems. For example, an AA mech that has long range missiles and short range flak, and anti-bomb lasers. Or a mobile artillery mech that sets up to fire and carries tactical missile defenses. Basically bigger units that provide heavy duty support in limited locations.

kinda following what other people are saying here but i think bots should be fast. also somewhere someone on uber said they where doing one faction but there will be many choices to make gameplay differentiation so i think this is a good way to do it. because in the early game a factory can be a significant investment, you have to choose whether you want a fast moving weaker army or a hard hitting slow army. if something like that isn't done than the bots should not have a separate factory.

Bots would would be more maneuverability than vehicles, being able to traverse steeper inclines and rougher terrain to make up for their lower durability compared to vehicles not to mention cheaper and faster to produce.

I'm hoping to see a return of a unit analogous to the T2 "Spider" kbot in TA, that can climb just about any terrain regardless of how steep it is, and also a bot fitted with jump-jets.

There are, of course, a wide variety of possible good implementations. Pawz's system has as much potential as what I am about to suggest.

But I would prefer a system where bots are small, cheap, and extremely cost-efficient. Vehicles are larger, and individually more powerful and durable, as well as more mobile over large areas of a planet. However they are also more expensive, and less cost-efficient in a heads-up fight.


Differentiating Bots

The main point where the system I propose differs is that I think little bots should be slow. Vehicles, by contrast, would be much faster than bots, but greatly affected by terrain. Over wide open, flat terrain, vehicles will be dramatically faster than bots. However, legged bots can traverse rough terrain, even very rough terrain for some bot types, even cliffs, (i.e. spiders) where vehicles would be extremely slow, or even unable to traverse the terrain at all.

I also think PA would benefit from differentiating between vehicles and tanks. Vehicles being wheeled, and tanks having treads, and typically more armor. Vehicles would be used for things like artillery, mobile SAM batteries, and a variety of other support or other auxiliary roles, while tanks have the armor and cannons, and a bit more off-road capability, but with lower top speed.

As an aside, I think tanks main guns should be powerful and quite long-ranged. More like real tanks than the plasma guns in TA. And give these cannons longer reload times, and give tanks themselves having poor vision, meaning common combat units benefit from spacing, spotters, and all that good stuff. Semi-realistic tank gameplay like in Wargame: European Escalation really is more interesting than the tank warfare in TA.


Bots vs Vehicles

This system creates a number of natural gameplay differences between bots and vehicles. Using only bots against only vehicles results in a more defensive paradigm, with a force of bots being used to defend key locations. The vehicle user is able to roam around the map and choose their battles, but will have a significant cost-efficiency disadvantage in a direct fight between armies of similar cost. Kiting, skirmishing, chewing around the edges of the defensive player's territory, and attacking where the enemy's defenses

From the other perspective, a force of vehicles really does not want to drive into a direct fight with a group of bots. The vehicles will probably win, but its casualties will be more severe, and bots are easier and cheaper to replenish. An army of vehicles is much more difficult to build and reinforce, but has a much higher power concentration than infantry, which are individually much weaker. The vehicle user will also rely on support assets, like fragile, squishy unarmored heavy artillery or other vehicle support.


Combined Arms

However the real purpose of my proposed bot/vehicle differentiation is to create combined arms gameplay. Bots and vehicles, while capable of independent operation, also synergize well. Land transports give speed and armor to the bots they carry. Infantry can ride across the countryside, and then unload from vehicles to assault a fixed position, while vehicles provide fire support. Infantry losses acceptable, vehicles losses undesirable.

Vehicles can also cover the weaknesses of bots, such as dedicated SAM anti-air or long-range artillery. Assets like vehicle mortar carriers can counter enemy infantry and allow your own infantry to push the enemy vehicles out of the area. Your own tanks can be used to maneuver and attack enemy vehicles, like squishy undefended artillery or SAMs, or to absorb damage from anti-infantry weapons and small arms.


Mechs

Big mechs behave very differently from little bots. They're big, expensive, individually powerful, and lend themselves to a completely different style of gameplay. Mechs are a good candidate for the "slow AND powerful" class of unit, which has the highest resource concentration in the fewest units.

They would also work well with any of the above styles. An army of infantry with a few large mechs adds backbone to a force of efficient chaff. An army of vehicles with a few mechs can use the large walkers as a vanguard for attacks, or to create a strong point for the vehicles to maneuver around.

I can think of another class of unit that tried to be less expensive yet cost more energy. It was aircraft. It didn't work. It will work even LESS here because assisting factories will cost the same energy no matter what.

The terrain angle worked fairly well for TotalA. Vehicles worked well in flat, blasted terrain while bots excelled in rough, hilly/foresty areas. I see no reason why it can't work here.

What does the metal/energy ratio have to do with anything? Vehicles would cost more of both, and be stronger than little bots. However for the same cost in bots (greater number) you get more combat power total, just in smaller increments that are slower and die more easily.

So the only difference between each factory type is the size of their units? That seems pointless. Small units cost less, big units cost more. That's eco 101. It's trivial to apply that theme in any combination with either land factory.

The difference between T1 roles was very minor in TA. For both factions, their vehicle and k-bot factories shared common roles:
- Constructor
- Light/Scout
- Medium/assault
- Heavy/splash
- Long/AA

Where TA factories differed is in execution of these roles. For example, the Peewee was by FAR the best light bot, bar none. Its cheap and powerful weapon tore through assault bots and entrenchments alike. It remains a classic to this day. However, that is more a sign of ineffective balance than of good versatility. When multiple units compete for the same role, the best one is going to be chosen above the others. All the rest are effectively obsolete.

To make factories differ, the ROLES they supply need to be different. It's not enough to only change the scale.

Bots as refered to as mechanical units with legs a torso and or arms?
Well what could a human or animal like mechanical being be good at?

What about:

• 
  dug
  roll
  take cover
  climb
  jump
  use tools(hands)
  throw stuff
  carry stuff (together)

What are vehicles good at:

• 
  Higher speed
  More economic movement
  Easier to achieve a bigger location surface
  Better handling or recoil therefore
  Lower center of gravity
  Harder to push over

Making two sets of units that fill the same roles, but come out of different factories is a waste of Uber's time. If you start with Kbot and get the same gameplay you would if you started with Vehicles, then you've only added units for the sake of adding units. You give the player a cosmetic choice, and nothing more.

However, range, speed and cost are big factors in determining unit role, so you can't just dismiss larger & more expensive as having no relevance to the role.

Ledarsi, we don't actually differ on bots at all - I called bots more maneuverable, but I meant in the sense that they can turn on a dime and aim & react quickly, while still having a low top speed. They should be able to traverse the most terrain, but generally be the slowest of all the classes.

Again, I have to say I really like exterminans vision (signature vs scan resolution) concept here to help differentiate between the unit classes. Kbots would automatically get a detection bonus against the larger tanks and mechs while still needing to get to close range to detect other kbots.

This would allow kbots to have a shorter range than tanks, and yet in a pure tank vs kbot battle, the tanks need to close to kbot range to get visual lock on the kbots. And there would be lots of opportunities for good synergy between tanks and kbots as a combined force.


As for mechs, I still think a plain 'bigger and more powerful but slower' model isn't nearly enough to justify mechs as a class to be added. In fact, most of the roles I suggested before could be taken on by t2 tanks without any difficulty.